By Victor Shapinov, of Borotba association, published on the English language page of Borotba website, July 3, 2014
One of the purposes of the ordinary participant in the Maidan movement was the destruction of the clan-oligarchic system. However, the system was not only preserved, but also sprouted such ugly metastases as the private “state within a state” of oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. It could not be otherwise for a movement sponsored by the oligarchs and politically led by neoliberals and outright Nazis.
But the destruction of the oligarchic system actually began “at the other end.” From the outset, the opponents of the Maidan were not only anti-nationalist but strongly against the oligarchic rule. This author saw how popular slogans against the oligarchs were at “AntiMaidan” rallies in Kharkov and Odessa.
And this is not surprising, because as we now know, all of the oligarchy was in the enemy camp against the movement in the South-East, marking the class divide between Maidan and AntiMaidan. Even Rinat Akhmetov, who was considered “of Donetsk,” due to the logic of class conflict, was in the “Kiev” camp. While Akhmetov’s employees, creating enormous profits for him in his Donbass factories, queued in a referendum on the establishment of the People’s Republic, their “boss” swore allegiance to the new authorities in Kiev hated by Donetsk residents. Then we saw him loyally posing at the inauguration of Poroshenko.
Despite the fact that the leadership of the People’s Republic mostly does not belong to the left political camp — there are more conservatives and supporters of “traditional values” — the very logic of the struggle pushes the leaders of the DNR and LC toward anti-oligarchic, if not anti-capitalist, politics. Just as this same logic pushed Donetsk’s oligarchic clans into the arms of the Kiev junta.
“Due to the reluctance of regional oligarchs to pay taxes for the DNR budget, we have decided to begin the process of nationalization,” said Denis Pushilin, Prime Minister of the DNR. Nationalization has repeatedly been raised by the heads of the People’s Republic. Thus, we can say that the movement of the South-East caught Maidan’s social agenda (to the extent it was present at all on the Maidan, drowned in the nationalist and liberal discourse of its chiefs).
The success of the People’s Republic will depend largely not on military victories, but how their political line will answer the profound crisis which Ukraine has plunged into. And if the Kiev model clearly plans to emerge from the crisis by increasing the burden on the people (tariff increases, reducing social payments, IMF requirements, etc.), then the People’s Republic has a chance to show the way out of the crisis in the interests of the people. And then the example of a People’s Republic free of oligarchs would be attractive for residents of Central and even Western Ukraine.
They need to act quickly and decisively. The first step is nationalization of the banks and the creation of their own printing center (for People’s Republic of the Union currency). This will make them independent of Kiev in matters of payments of wages, pensions, benefits, etc. Not an easy task, but solvable. After all, even the Dnestr Moldavian Republic had to create its own currency.
Previously, the People’s Republic leaders talked about transition to the Russian ruble, but it seems to me that such a move will fail. First, the fact is that the Russian Federation will unlikely be able to provide a sufficient money supply to ensure turnover in the country and especially to cover social benefits. Second, control of printing of currency is the most important lever of control over the economy, by increasing or decreasing the money supply. Thirdly, it is an important propaganda point: a state that creates its own monetary system looks much more “stable” than one using someone else’s currency.
The second step is nationalization of the principal means of production. This is not as simple as we would like. The fact is that the production capacity of Donbass is tied to the territory of Ukraine and the Kiev-controlled regime, in terms of raw materials and markets. This problem could be solved through the structure of the Customs Union, but it is necessary, first of all, for Russia to agree, with the consequent dependence, and secondly, the involvement of experts. Here one could refer to leftist economic specialists, as once the revolutionary government of Algeria, freed from colonial rule, invited European leftist intellectuals as experts, to build an economy with elements of planning.
The third step is the organization of distribution and price controls. This measure of “war communism” is particularly necessary under military blockade, as well as ruthless struggle against speculators.
The people’s republics have a chance to show how people can live without the parasitic oligarchy and blatant inequality. Will they realize this chance? We’ll see. But today we see the sprouts appear of Another Ukraine, a Donbass without oligarchs.
